FWIW, I thought it funny not because of the incongruent nature of the comparison, but that the marketing and management of the Xbox brand could be seen to make such a false comparison.

Being a PS4 thread, I didn't want to derail this thread further.

As I've always said : Pre-180 plans were flawed in that:

a) the heartbeat / always on was stupid and/or far too restrictive. People want/need offline mode. Steam does it well.b) the Kinect-to-always-be-connected was wrong. People will simply use it or not. As games use it better, people will leave it connected.c) To facilitate trading in your license key, simply (as Hark pointed out) force that the console is online at the time of trade so the license can be revoked (or have a function to put the game into "pending trade" state on your account, and get a validation key that the store can use to complete the transaction).

I think the biggest mistake with their initial required-online approach was going for it while we're still in a weird hybrid zone of disc and digital distribution. If they wanted it to be online-only, they should have just gone full-bore and release a console with no disc drive. People raised eyebrows at Apple when they started releasing laptops with no disc drive, but it didn't take much to realize that just about everything was available via digital distribution.

Having no disc drive would mean they'd be mocked for having no ability to play blu-ray movies compared to the PS4, but if they set up a good digital distribution model I think there'd be a good chance of being looked at as being more forward-thinking. Unless it's just too early for digital-only, which maybe it is. But I do think online-only and disc-free go hand in hand. Nobody's going to bat an eye if Steam boxes are online-only with no disc drive, and so it could have been with the Xbone.

if they had gone the Steam route like Valve did with copies of HL2 back then, they could have made it work. but the big issue was optional vs required. if you are offline or decide not to link it to your account, the disc stays in the drive to play it. if you want to go disc-less, you can but the game isn't eligible for loaning or selling without de-linking it.

they could have made this work. I'm disappointed that they didn't come up this as a compromise after the backlash. this would have been forward thinking.

online requirement was always a dumb move and their post-announce handling proves that their marketing team needs to rethink its approach. it came off elitist

MS, imo, had Sony's hubris when the PS2 was king. Sony learned from that debacle and they are a better company for it. Hopefully, MS learned the same lesson.

I was going to post something similar. It wasn't that long ago that Sony was DESPISED. Remember when they announced the exorbitant price of the PS3 and basically told consumers, "You'll buy it because we're fucking Sony and we know what's best for you"?

It's just human nature to build our idols up then viciously tear them down. Sony got pounded last-gen, MS will get pounded this gen, the circle of life continues to spin.

All that said, however, I don't think public relations has ever been MS's strong suit. They tend to be really forward thinking, and they have enough money and enough clout to just throw their stuff into the market and see what sticks.

I think the biggest mistake with their initial required-online approach was going for it while we're still in a weird hybrid zone of disc and digital distribution. If they wanted it to be online-only, they should have just gone full-bore and release a console with no disc drive. People raised eyebrows at Apple when they started releasing laptops with no disc drive, but it didn't take much to realize that just about everything was available via digital distribution.

Having no disc drive would mean they'd be mocked for having no ability to play blu-ray movies compared to the PS4, but if they set up a good digital distribution model I think there'd be a good chance of being looked at as being more forward-thinking. Unless it's just too early for digital-only, which maybe it is. But I do think online-only and disc-free go hand in hand. Nobody's going to bat an eye if Steam boxes are online-only with no disc drive, and so it could have been with the Xbone.

I think the games are too large to really make that feasible for the majority of the market. If you went full bore no disk drive, you'd drastically lower your total addressable market to those who could download 30GB in a reasonable timeframe.

I'm all for digital distribution. The only physical next gen games I have are the games I got at launch with the PS4. The last three purchases have been downloaded and I'm quite happy to keep going that way.

I think the biggest mistake with their initial required-online approach was going for it while we're still in a weird hybrid zone of disc and digital distribution. If they wanted it to be online-only, they should have just gone full-bore and release a console with no disc drive. People raised eyebrows at Apple when they started releasing laptops with no disc drive, but it didn't take much to realize that just about everything was available via digital distribution.

Having no disc drive would mean they'd be mocked for having no ability to play blu-ray movies compared to the PS4, but if they set up a good digital distribution model I think there'd be a good chance of being looked at as being more forward-thinking. Unless it's just too early for digital-only, which maybe it is. But I do think online-only and disc-free go hand in hand. Nobody's going to bat an eye if Steam boxes are online-only with no disc drive, and so it could have been with the Xbone.

I think the games are too large to really make that feasible for the majority of the market. If you went full bore no disk drive, you'd drastically lower your total addressable market to those who could download 30GB in a reasonable timeframe.

I'm all for digital distribution. The only physical next gen games I have are the games I got at launch with the PS4. The last three purchases have been downloaded and I'm quite happy to keep going that way.

That's why I suggested the USB drive and partnering with Gamespot, or even better Red Box. Just go up to a Red Box plug your drive in and download the install files.

I think the biggest mistake with their initial required-online approach was going for it while we're still in a weird hybrid zone of disc and digital distribution. If they wanted it to be online-only, they should have just gone full-bore and release a console with no disc drive. People raised eyebrows at Apple when they started releasing laptops with no disc drive, but it didn't take much to realize that just about everything was available via digital distribution.

Having no disc drive would mean they'd be mocked for having no ability to play blu-ray movies compared to the PS4, but if they set up a good digital distribution model I think there'd be a good chance of being looked at as being more forward-thinking. Unless it's just too early for digital-only, which maybe it is. But I do think online-only and disc-free go hand in hand. Nobody's going to bat an eye if Steam boxes are online-only with no disc drive, and so it could have been with the Xbone.

I think the games are too large to really make that feasible for the majority of the market. If you went full bore no disk drive, you'd drastically lower your total addressable market to those who could download 30GB in a reasonable timeframe.

Fair point, but in your mind what makes download sizes an issue for console games but not for Steam games? Is there just that much larger a market for console game buyers than PC game buyers, so it includes more people with so-so internet connections (or no internet)?

But then again, since Microsoft was all set to limit themselves to just consumers with an always-on internet connection, how big is the venn diagram slice of people who have an always-on connection but not a good enough connection to download a 30GB game?

Comparing PS Now to Microsoft's DRM policy doesn't make sense. Like Scraper said, PS Now is an optional game service that you could choose to never use.

I'll only take issue with PS Now if it means getting games like The Last of Us in a streaming format INSTEAD of a digital download format. I want the option to go either way (so I never have to stream my games, which is a joke at this point in time).

I read an article recently (may have been Wired) that there is going to be a big push towards broadband availability/speed over the next decade in the US. I think demand is going to drive that anyway, as online entertainment delivery becomes more and more mainstream. There's also a HUGE economic incentive for game publishers and companies to keep all that content "in the cloud." So I have no doubt we'll get there sooner rather than later.

Quote

But then again, since Microsoft was all set to limit themselves to just consumers with an always-on internet connection, how big is the venn diagram slice of people who have an always-on connection but not a good enough connection to download a 30GB game?

Some quick Googling shows that as of last year, broadband penetration in the US was 70%, with an average speed of 8.6Mbps. That places us in 9th place in the world. USA! USA! USA!

I think the biggest mistake with their initial required-online approach was going for it while we're still in a weird hybrid zone of disc and digital distribution. If they wanted it to be online-only, they should have just gone full-bore and release a console with no disc drive. People raised eyebrows at Apple when they started releasing laptops with no disc drive, but it didn't take much to realize that just about everything was available via digital distribution.

Having no disc drive would mean they'd be mocked for having no ability to play blu-ray movies compared to the PS4, but if they set up a good digital distribution model I think there'd be a good chance of being looked at as being more forward-thinking. Unless it's just too early for digital-only, which maybe it is. But I do think online-only and disc-free go hand in hand. Nobody's going to bat an eye if Steam boxes are online-only with no disc drive, and so it could have been with the Xbone.

I think the games are too large to really make that feasible for the majority of the market. If you went full bore no disk drive, you'd drastically lower your total addressable market to those who could download 30GB in a reasonable timeframe.

I'm all for digital distribution. The only physical next gen games I have are the games I got at launch with the PS4. The last three purchases have been downloaded and I'm quite happy to keep going that way.

This.

Thing is, with it being an all-in-one, you'd want to be able to play older media (DVD, BD, CDs) regardless, so a drive was necessary. Whether games were disk-based was likely due to bandwidth/data cap concerns.

In my gaming experience, I now detest getting up to switch disks. I want to play my games, as is. I kind of resent Sony's use of the fear of change to hinder us moving away from ownership-based-on-disk model. In that regard I might be excited for something like PS Now. Problem is, there are only a handful of games I'd be interested in playing at this point (from the last-gen).

« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 07:27:06 PM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Sony isn't hindering the future of games distribution. They have pushed it on the PS3 with their Day 1 Digital on PSN and with having all digital buying ability on the PS Vita. If you want to not ever buy a disc/cart with a PlayStation product you can.

Sony isn't hindering the future of games distribution. They have pushed it on the PS3 with their Day 1 Digital on PSN and with having all digital buying ability on the PS Vita. If you want to not ever buy a disc/cart with a PlayStation product you can.

Sony isn't hindering the future of games distribution. They have pushed it on the PS3 with their Day 1 Digital on PSN and with having all digital buying ability on the PS Vita. If you want to not ever buy a disc/cart with a PlayStation product you can.

Same goes for Nintendo at this point. I'm not sure if it's the case for the Wii U, but I haven't need to buy a physical game for my 3DS since launch day.

Sony isn't hindering the future of games distribution. They have pushed it on the PS3 with their Day 1 Digital on PSN and with having all digital buying ability on the PS Vita. If you want to not ever buy a disc/cart with a PlayStation product you can.

No, but they DID leverage the whole DRM in a way that set the xbone back to disk format. Good strategy or not, it sets the game systems back in terms of how licensing works. I don't put a DVD in the drive for every steam game I play. Why should next Gen consoles do that ever?

Most PC games, even diskbased from a B&M are simply the installer, with some form of (fairly) persistent online license validation. This is not new - but being able to share your library, or even be able to resell your licenses is.

Huh? I have no idea what your saying dude. You obviously have some conspiracy burr about Sony ruining your dream of an all digital world when the facts say otherwise. Everything bad that happened with the Xbox One at its launch was self inflicted by Microsoft and horrible PR. Again since you seem to ignore the facts that Sony has pushed digital distribution on consoles faster that MS has so again no idea what your issue with them is but whatever.

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM. Instead, Sony acted like they've been physical media proponents all along with their "this is how easy it is to trade PS4 games" YouTube videos. The reality is that Sony wants to get away from physical media just as much as everyone else does, but they saw a backlash brewing and quickly retreated to cast MS in the worst possible light. Not saying that was wrong - that's just business and Sony has every right to exploit every weakness in their competition.

Where MS was really going with their online DRM was not a nefarious scheme to punish gamers. It was to follow the Steam model and advance digital distribution of games to the point where we could see stuff like digital trading, cheaper console game prices, etc. Unfortunately people only saw the downsides, so we've probably delayed a true Steam-like marketplace for console games by years.

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM. Instead, Sony acted like they've been physical media proponents all along with their "this is how easy it is to trade PS4 games" YouTube videos. The reality is that Sony wants to get away from physical media just as much as everyone else does, but they saw a backlash brewing and quickly retreated to cast MS in the worst possible light. Not saying that was wrong - that's just business and Sony has every right to exploit every weakness in their competition.

Where MS was really going with their online DRM was not a nefarious scheme to punish gamers. It was to follow the Steam model and advance digital distribution of games to the point where we could see stuff like digital trading, cheaper console game prices, etc. Unfortunately people only saw the downsides, so we've probably delayed a true Steam-like marketplace for console games by years.

Also, Sony didn't retreat on this. They had digital and disc based versions of the games available because that's where we are now. People aren't quite ready to have all-digital forced on them, even if it is the inevitable future.

I also repeat that Family Sharing was never, ever officially announced. Likewise, MS didn't really say anything concrete about licensing. Everything collapsed when they realized they didn't know what they were doing, and Sony called them out on that. Family sharing was a myth released as a document by some random person after the fact, probably an MS employee, but that service was never announced and no one can ever say it was going to be implemented, and there's a lot of conflicting info about how this mythical sharing plan would have been implemented anyway.

People are getting upset over the loss of some non-existant, mythological program that never existed.

Meanwhile, they don't realize that the digital future is already here with Steam and full digital releases of all games on PSN and XBL. You never have to touch a disc again. Meanwhile, those that for whatever reason can't, or don't want to, use digital downloads can avoid it.

I also repeat that Family Sharing was never, ever officially announced. Likewise, MS didn't really say anything concrete about licensing. Everything collapsed when they realized they didn't know what they were doing, and Sony called them out on that. Family sharing was a myth released as a document by some random person after the fact, probably an MS employee, but that service was never announced and no one can ever say it was going to be implemented, and there's a lot of conflicting info about how this mythical sharing plan would have been implemented anyway.

People are getting upset over the loss of some non-existant, mythological program that never existed.

Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friendís house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Where MS was really going with their online DRM was not a nefarious scheme to punish gamers. It was to follow the Steam model and advance digital distribution of games to the point where we could see stuff like digital trading, cheaper console game prices, etc. Unfortunately people only saw the downsides, so we've probably delayed a true Steam-like marketplace for console games by years.

It was not following Steam model but a more strict online DRM than Steam. If it was just like Steam, I don't think we'll see as much backlash from people here. We're used to Steam model and big customer of Steam.

Yes, which is why I just got through saying nobody's arguing that MS didn't fail from a PR perspective.

And the only difference with MS's digital distribution model and Steam is that Steam offers an offline mode. However, the always online component of the XB1 was always meant to be more than just DRM - it was meant to ensure a consistent experience across all users.

Yes, which is why I just got through saying nobody's arguing that MS didn't fail from a PR perspective.

And the only difference with MS's digital distribution model and Steam is that Steam offers an offline mode. However, the always online component of the XB1 was always meant to be more than just DRM - it was meant to ensure a consistent experience across all users.

Right, but you also got through saying that MS had this intention for that service and people just couldn't see it. My point was that they couldn't see it because it wasn't there. MS didn't put it out there at all. If it was their plan, they obfuscated it to a point that it did seem a bit nefarious.

I also repeat that Family Sharing was never, ever officially announced. Likewise, MS didn't really say anything concrete about licensing. Everything collapsed when they realized they didn't know what they were doing, and Sony called them out on that. Family sharing was a myth released as a document by some random person after the fact, probably an MS employee, but that service was never announced and no one can ever say it was going to be implemented, and there's a lot of conflicting info about how this mythical sharing plan would have been implemented anyway.

People are getting upset over the loss of some non-existant, mythological program that never existed.

Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you.

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friendís house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Yes but it was never very clearly explained. I'm convinced that it was just a fantasy that MS had going. Were publishers going to agree to sharing their games with 10 other people? Perhaps someone will come out with a book one day which will make this a whole lot clearer. If MS wants to go to an all digital world then they need to do it the way Valve did it, by making people WANT to go that route, not forcing them to.

Most of the furor over family sharing dying was after the fact when some fancy document showed up online, allegedly posted by an MS employee. A lot of detail that never was expanded on until it was gone and they didn't have to live up to any of those statements, assuming they were real in the first place. Contrast that to the very detailed Steam family sharing announcement and you can see why people were suspicious.

And on that, steam is just now testing family sharing. There isn't really a reason why MS and Sony couldn't implement a family sharing system of their own for all digitally purchased products as a value added feature. It gives people an incentive to buy digital, even at a higher price. Incentives to go in a direction is a good way to transition, instead of forcing it on everyone and expecting people to only see some digital utopia and not ask the hard questions.

Oh and there are real benefits to using discs as well, about the only major downside is having to put a disc in the console.

Sure, steam isn't the pinnacle of digital distribution, but this notion that MS's XB1 digital distribution implementation that never existed is somehow going to be that was always going to be some fancy dream that never would live up to reality.

I think the biggest issue was that none of Microsoft's originally announced features for the Xbox One felt like they were made for the consumer. Instead they felt like they were made for the companies selling you products, with buzzwords on top to make it all sound acceptable to the customers. Both Valve and Sony have been very good at avoiding this kind of angle.

I think the biggest issue was that none of Microsoft's originally announced features for the Xbox One felt like they were made for the consumer. Instead they felt like they were made for the companies selling you products, with buzzwords on top to make it all sound acceptable to the customers. Both Valve and Sony have been very good at avoiding this kind of angle.

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM.

That's called being a smart business. Also they don't need to trumpet it. Their actions in what they offer with digital speak for themsleves. MS screwing up their own PR is their own fault. Sony had no obligation to bail them out.

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM.

That's called being a smart business. Also they don't need to trumpet it. Their actions in what they offer with digital speak for themsleves. MS screwing up their own PR is their own fault. Sony had no obligation to bail them out.

Nobody said they Sony had to - even I pointed out how it was a good strategy for THEM, as in Sony. For progress in gaming? Notsomuch - they set back disk-less console gaming licenses being more than just buy it and be stuck with it. There is nothing to be done about it now - MS will likely swing their product in that direction via open-market means (eg: hey buy Halo 5 online, and you could trade it in / share it vs buying in-store). If they're smart, they'll make it slightly cheaper. Or they may just nurse their DRM backlash wounds and not push further.

Right now Sony's talking about giving access to their selected library of older games, using a DS3 to play on multiple devices. Cool for me, cuz I didn't own them already, but I have none of the devices (well, limited PS3 access). For someone who has an extensive library of games? This does not replace BC. Is there any word about using PSN to sync up your existing savegames at least? What about DLC content? Obviously GOTY versions would have it included.

I still have a few leftover PS3 games, and a bunch of 360 games which are simply collecting dust and aren't worth trading in. One thing I was thinking of the other day, was I'd love to be able to mail my disk versions of games to console MFGR's in exchange for an online license (esp. for games that I want to keep). No more disk spin-up, no noise, no senseless limitation based on physical property.

Now if that license was also transferable/sellable? That would be the cat's ass.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 01:52:06 AM by Purge »

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM.

That's called being a smart business. Also they don't need to trumpet it. Their actions in what they offer with digital speak for themsleves. MS screwing up their own PR is their own fault. Sony had no obligation to bail them out.

Nobody said they Sony had to - even I pointed out how it was a good strategy for THEM, as in Sony. For progress in gaming? Notsomuch - they set back disk-less console gaming licenses being more than just buy it and be stuck with it. There is nothing to be done about it now - MS will likely swing their product in that direction via open-market means (eg: hey buy Halo 5 online, and you could trade it in / share it vs buying in-store). If they're smart, they'll make it slightly cheaper. Or they may just nurse their DRM backlash wounds and not push further.

Right now Sony's talking about giving access to their selected library of older games, using a DS3 to play on multiple devices. Cool for me, cuz I didn't own them already, but I have none of the devices (well, limited PS3 access). For someone who has an extensive library of games? This does not replace BC. Is there any word about using PSN to sync up your existing savegames at least? What about DLC content? Obviously GOTY versions would have it included.

I still have a few leftover PS3 games, and a bunch of 360 games which are simply collecting dust and aren't worth trading in. One thing I was thinking of the other day, was I'd love to be able to mail my disk versions of games to console MFGR's in exchange for an online license (esp. for games that I want to keep). No more disk spin-up, no noise, no senseless limitation based on physical property.

Now if that license was also transferable/sellable? That would be the cat's ass.

That's called being a smart business. Also they don't need to trumpet it. Their actions in what they offer with digital speak for themsleves. MS screwing up their own PR is their own fault. Sony had no obligation to bail them out.

Quote from: YellowKing

Not saying that was wrong - that's just business and Sony has every right to exploit every weakness in their competition.

I fail to see how Sony set things back when they offer a digital version day one with the disk release for pretty much every game on PS4.

Those game licenses are non-transferrable. Basically, Sony failed to innovate, and when their competition tried, they managed to score a fatal hit rather than letting MS stumble on their own.

Remember Sony's online strategy with the PS2? XBL was needed for them to step up. Then PSN+ came out with better discounts and the competitive nature flip flopped.

Their innovation seems to be with PS Now. To answer one of your questions from a previous post, yes your save games (which are all automatically saved in the cloud) will work. It's kind of the whole point.

Additionally, if the subscription service works the way it seems like it will, it is absolutely BC. BC is being able to play the old games on the new system. That's what PS Now is delivering. You're just paying for the privilege. As someone who finds BC important, but knowing that others couldn't care less, I'm okay with that.

I think what Purge is trying to say is that even if Sony has been a proponent for digital distribution, they certainly didn't trumpet that when MS was facing a backlash over online DRM.

That's called being a smart business. Also they don't need to trumpet it. Their actions in what they offer with digital speak for themsleves. MS screwing up their own PR is their own fault. Sony had no obligation to bail them out.

Nobody said they Sony had to - even I pointed out how it was a good strategy for THEM, as in Sony. For progress in gaming? Notsomuch - they set back disk-less console gaming licenses being more than just buy it and be stuck with it. There is nothing to be done about it now - MS will likely swing their product in that direction via open-market means (eg: hey buy Halo 5 online, and you could trade it in / share it vs buying in-store). If they're smart, they'll make it slightly cheaper. Or they may just nurse their DRM backlash wounds and not push further.

OMG you are freaking hilarious. You actually think that MS was on some amazing path with digital distribution an licensing with the Xbox One and Sony irrecoverably ruined it? Geez dude talk about going off the rails....